You must log in or # to comment.
CEO here (seriously). I would like to officially state that avoiding actions that would entice someone to assassinate me has not put an undue burden on my career. Just want to put that out there.
Consider giving your company to your employees.
It is a C Corp. Ownership is split between the senior staff, and I am not a majority holder and I am nowhere near the highest paid employee. Every senior staff hire gets ownership.
CEO doesn’t mean owner. In my case I am more of club coach managing a bunch of star athletes.
Sounds like you did consider it, youre definitely one the good ones.
Thank you but I need to reiterate that I do not own or start the company. I am an employee serving the role of Chief Executive Officer. The ownership scheme was discussed and voted on by the then shareholders (myself included).
This strategy makes business sense. We are a small, boutique firm that competes directly with some of the biggest companies in the world. By offering a stake in the company we are able to hire top talent away from the big guys and we can protect ourselves from poachers.
Nah, I was not being sarcastic. It seems you have thought about the well being of your employees. I understand that theres nothing you can do personally to improve their lives any further, but the fact that you have entertained the idea long enough to come to the conclusion that you cant help puts you a cut above the rest. My boss effectively tried to kill me and two other employees two days ago, i was directly responsible for all three of us not dying. My boss then screamed at me for allowing the situation to occur in the first place(it was mostly their fault, but also partially our drivers fault.) They then attempted to call me in the next day because they failed to properly schedule employees. I make 10/h with no benefits.
Out of interest what does your company do? I might consider buying something from you guys just because of the employee ownership part.
Thank you! I genuinely appreciate the gesture, but we are not a consumer products company. We offer highly specialized optimization services to companies that are dependent on enterprise spanning applications. The example I like to use is the Amazon shopping cart. If Amazon’s shopping cart becomes sluggish or starts dropping items, the company stands to lose millions of dollars per hour. We make sure that the cart, and everything the cart depends on, is working at peak efficiency.
EDIT: If you consume electricity in a major American metropolitan city, odds are pretty good that you are interfacing with our work.
Maybe look into seeing if everyone else would be ok with that as an exit strategy? It’s being tried in a few places and there’s a firm(s?) that guide ownership who wants to sell to the employees.
Very context dependant, I’d imagine
This is the same as owning a car, and then someone walks up to you on the street and says “consider giving your car to that man who is walking”.
That was really stupid.
He doesn’t contribute to your car. Your employees contribute to your company. “That man who is walking” makes no contribution to your life. Your employees do.
I see what you’re saying, but the point I’m trying to make is that neither of them own the company or the car, so why should they receive that sort of benefit? If I pick trash up from the side of the road, should that land become mine? If I’m a handyman and I’ve been paid to work on someone’s fence, do I deserve a share of that fence? No.
This isn’t a good analogy. The man who is walking is not directly contributing to the car or having anything to do with the car.
See my response to the other comments. I what I’m getting at is that the premise of the original comment was ridiculous and nobody will ever get on board with it, much less politicians. Instead of offering ridiculous, impossible solutions that make us look like idiots, why don’t we just go for something reasonable like a better minimum wage? Then people will be prosperous enough to start their own companies, if they desire. Not everyone wants to own their own company or share the responsibility of such a thing.
Okay, but if that was your point, you should use an analogy that drives your point home. What you’re saying now is nothing like your original comment lol.
Not true. The original poster was suggesting that someone just randomly give away something to somebody else. Analogies are always imperfect, and I’m surprised that I have to explain that to you.
What? Whatever else it is, it is nothing like your car example
Neither of them own the original thing. Just because you contribute to something, doesn’t mean you deserve part of it. Contribution was optional in the first place, and in the case of the employee, they are paid.
Instead of posing ridiculous arguments like trying to distribute companies among “the workers”, most of which probably don’t even care in the first place, why not just fight for a better minimum wage so its a non-issue?
Does that mean you don’t do bad shit, or you’re just not afraid of being shot? 🤔
Can’t scare me out of my vicious business practices with a threat of assassination if I hate myself so much I want to die 😎
Guys I think he’s bulletproof let’s try shooting him
"bad shit’ is relative. Who among us are without sin? I think conflating the CEO of a local retail business with CEO of a national company specializing in collecting medical debt is not healthy to increasing support for systemic change. Could the local ceo pay the cashier’s more? probably… But so could small business owners in general. Should we get mad at someone for choosing a repair person that charges less for a job? Why not pay someone else more for their labor? How much more? Pretty soon the finger pointing is so ubiquitous it’s irrelevant.
…did you just answer a direct question to someone else?
I guess we’ll find out all of your mysteries the second he replies.
I didn’t answer a question. I commented on the use of the term “bad shit” in reference to a question to op.
I certainly wouldn’t feel safe working next to a CEO. Who knows when they’ll snap and do something horrible?
I’ll pick being alone in the woods with a bear
What about alone in the woods with a CEO, with no witnesses around?
Do we get to use the 'ole stick trick, mistah?
7s ago
Did they take a screenshot of their own posts immediately after posting and then posted that image online?
Yes. They have a Facebook page and they post these screenshots to it. Lol I follow them.
Facebook page
[inhales through teeth] aw well that’s a shame
In an ideal world (therefore not ruled by humans) the word CEO would just mean that someone has to take care of the “big picture” duties and(/or?) owns the company. Yes, they would have more income than the average cannon fodder, but nothing crazy.
Being a CEO shouldn’t mean anything bad on its own. Too bad we’re just humans, therefore inherently greedy and selfish to various extents, and obviously the most scummy, selfish, greedy pricks just get selected into the role more often (or born into it). Just be aware that CEO ≠ evil automatically.
I think people are pretty clear that it’s not the ceo part that makes people evil, it’s just that the behavior it normally takes to get to that position within a big company is basically never rainbows and Mr Rogers.
That ‘financial responsibility to maximize shareholder profit’ isn’t a joke and it often takes people with very little empathy to do it. With maybe some exceptions for some small companies or people who built the business from the ground up, i can’t think of a single person in a CEO role, or aspiring to one, that would make anything close to a good ‘friend’, or even what most people would consider a good person.
You can’t be a CEO of lots of these companies and act ethically.
Like: legally.
They have a legal fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders. That trumps everything else, including the lives of customers and employees.
One thing to note: that hasn’t always been the case. This is something that can change.
It really started in the late 1970s with the Friedman Doctrine.
The Friedman doctrine, also called shareholder theory, is a normative theory of business ethics advanced by economist Milton Friedman which holds that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. This shareholder primacy approach views shareholders as the economic engine of the organization and the only group to which the firm is socially responsible. As such, the goal of the firm is to increase its profits and maximize returns to shareholders.
I’m trying to find the story I listened to about this on NPR a few years ago, but it essentially discussed how this doctrine was taken up after the stagflation in the 1970s (particularly as Reagan was heavily influenced by Milton Friedman). The main point was that it seemed like the traditional economic system was collapsing at that time, and Friedman’s ideas argued that it was because businesses were not focused enough on profits. Instead, many businesses were trying to be part of a broader community and work on doing things that were good for the public. Friedman’s idea was that this was too economically inefficient and that a businesses only ethical obligation should be to make money for the shareholders, and that the shareholders could decide for themselves on how too help the public.
This went over very well with business leaders, and it helped ushered in the Gordon Gecko era of unironic “greed is good”.
They’re only doing the bidding of the Shadow Council who will conjure a new one should the need arise.
Penis mightier than the sword for sure
Let Elon Musk be the next
“Condemning The UnitedHealth CEO Assassination” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqUvJEB1SU4
Thank god Trump is not a jealous nor envious type. Thank god the revenge seeking reprobate that got elected wouldn’t be full of glee to see other rich people without SS protection feel scared.
Trump got liberals to hate on his enemies before he even took office again.
If billionaires are his enemies, he’s been making some strange appointments
holy shit get this person a straight jacket asap. imagine living life thinking this all the time.
(they weren’t with him)
As if the medical field / pharamaceuticals aren’t doing it on their own. Denying can actually save lives.
“Orphanage arson can actually save lives”
They’re orphans, who’s going to be sad, their parents?
/s
Are you a literal fucking moron? Or just cosplaying as one?
They’re a troll. Just add a user note as “literal fucking moron” and any time you see them, let people know not to engage.
